Ten reasons why corporate language policies can create ...languagemanagement.ff.cuni.cz/system/files/documents/Sanden... · CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 3. discussion will

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclp20

Current Issues in Language Planning

ISSN: 1466-4208 (Print) 1747-7506 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Ten reasons why corporate language policies cancreate more problems than they solve

Guro R. Sanden

To cite this article: Guro R. Sanden (2018): Ten reasons why corporate language policiescan create more problems than they solve, Current Issues in Language Planning, DOI:10.1080/14664208.2018.1553914

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2018.1553914

Published online: 03 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Ten reasons why corporate language policies can create moreproblems than they solveGuro R. Sanden

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

ABSTRACTAn increasing number of multilingual organisations such asmultinational corporations (MNCs) choose to address linguisticdiversity through corporate language policies, for example byadopting a common corporate language. Although a commoncorporate language may improve efficiency of communication atthe front-line level, previous research has demonstrated that thereare several potentially negative consequences associated with theimplementation of such policies. This conceptual paper reviewsthe role of language policies in multilingual organisations, andidentifies ten crucial language policy challenges in internationalbusiness and management.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 15 July 2018Accepted 27 November 2018

KEYWORDSCommon corporatelanguage; internationalmanagement; internalcommunication; languagepolicy

Introduction

As the global business environment strengthens the role of language in the corporateworld, firms are becoming more aware of the importance that language plays in the well-being of their organisation (Brannen & Doz, 2012; Dhir & Gòkè-Pariolá, 2002). Most mul-tinational corporations (MNCs) will at some point be forced to take a stand on thelanguage and communication-related issues associated with attracting a group of linguis-tically heterogeneous employees. A topic that has gained increasing attention from com-munication and international management scholars in recent years is how companies mayovercome the language barrier and address linguistic diversity among employees in aneffective manner. A large amount of this research deals with the development andimplementation of corporate language policies, and specifically the adoption of acommon corporate language, also known as the lingua franca (e.g. Feely & Harzing,2003; Harzing, Köster, & Magner, 2011; Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999a,1999b).

A common corporate language is often seen as a quick and easy solution to overcomelanguage differences in multilingual organisations. By standardising the language choicefor all corporate personnel, a shared language establishes a common framework for in-house communication in spite of employees’ many different language backgrounds(Linn, Sanden, & Piekkari, 2018). However, as this paper will discuss, corporate languagepolicies are not necessarily as straightforward as they may seem. In fact, they may have

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Guro R. Sanden [email protected]; Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University,Kroghstraede 3, Aalborg DK-9220, Denmark https://www.linkedin.com/in/gurorefsumsanden/

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNINGhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2018.1553914

unforeseen implications and consequences, and even bring with them a whole range ofunanticipated problems.

The present paper offers a review of previous research which has examined the role ofcorporate language policies, notably English lingua franca policies, in internationalbusiness. The power of language is particularly visible when examining the manydifferent challenges managers are faced with when trying to control the use of languagein company-internal communication (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1990). If these challenges arenot taken seriously into account, they may result in severe administrative and operationalproblems for linguistically diverse organisations. This paper will discuss how and whylanguage policies may result in sub-optimal outcomes by focusing on ten languagepolicy challenges companies need to deal with – and even more importantly, how thesechallenges may be avoided. Let’s start with a short introduction to the concept of corporatelanguage policies in international business.

Corporate language policies at a glance

International business operations naturally raise a number of questions related to languageand cross-cultural communication. These difficulties are particularly prevalent in compa-nies based in less populated countries where the national language is spoken by a limitednumber of people (Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 2014). As multilingualism and linguisticdiversity may act as a significant barrier for international business communication, it isnot surprising that the ramification of these issues have been studied closely by anumber of researchers, many of whom are rooted in different academic disciplines. As dis-cussed by Sanden (2016a), the term ‘language management’ is used by researchers inves-tigating how and under what conditions language can be managed, leading to differentunderstandings of what the management of language actually entails. While acknowled-ging that ‘language management’ as a concept also may refer to the Language ManagementTheory (LMT), originally developed by Jernudd and Neustupný (1987; see also Fair-brother, Nekvapil, & Sloboda, 2018; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009, 2015; Sherman & Nekva-pil, 2018), and language management as a sub-concept of language policy within the workof Spolsky (2004, 2009), the present article will focus on language management within thecontext of the international business and management literature. Following Sanden’s(2016a, p. 533) classification, language management is here defined as a business strategytool, i.e. ‘an instrumental process where language is seen as a variable in business and cor-porate management’. Within the international management perspective, the purpose of alanguage policy is primarily to standardise the language and communication practices ofemployees, based on the assumption that it will improve the overall productivity and per-formance of the firm (Linn et al., 2018).

In terms of international business communication, it may be useful to make a distinc-tion between two basic modes or spheres of communication, which roughly speaking canbe separated into external and internal communication. External communication is thecommunication that takes place between the company and the outside world, such ascommunication directed towards customers, investors, partners and suppliers, etc.Internal communication, on the other hand, is the communication that takes placewithin the corporation itself, such as the exchange of information between variousunits, departments, or divisions belonging to the same organisation (Bartlett &

2 G. R. SANDEN

Ghoshal, 2002). A corporate language policy will in this case refer to the general guidelinesand systematic activities developed with the purpose of regulating a company’s internalmodes of communication. Where external communication often leans towards the mar-keting side of business, internal communication is very much related to human resourcemanagement, as it deals specifically with the language skills of employees (Welch, Welch,& Piekkari, 2001).

Corporate language policies for internal communication can be defined as the deliber-ate control of employees’ language practices (Bergenholtz & Johnsen, 2006, p. 107). Cor-porate language policies usually contain an element of regulation by trying to influencelinguistic behaviour (Seargeant, 2009), for example by establishing an official companylanguage, or by explicitly stating which language or languages to use in which situations.One of the most characteristic features of a language policy is, in other words, to standar-dise the use of language, specifically with regard to language choice. However, the languagepolicy format may vary from regulatory documents, as found in studies conducted byNeeley (2011, 2017) and SanAntonio (1987), to guidelines and informal instructions forimproving communication practices for the company in question, as observed by Kanga-sharju, Piekkari, and Säntti (2010).

The vast majority of the existing literature on corporate language policies focuses on therole of English as a common corporate language (Thomas, 2008; Tietze, 2008). The attrac-tiveness of English stems from its widespread use in global communication (Ferguson,2012; Graddol, 2006; Nickerson, 2005). Language policies are often implemented withthe purpose of establishing a shared linguistic framework for information exchange,thereby minimising the potential for misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and toavoid loss of information through a translation process. Marschan-Piekkari et al.(1999a) observe that a common corporate language facilitates formal reporting, andeases access to professional and technical literature, as well as policy and procedure docu-ments. The presence of the common language may also have a positive impact on anyinformal communication that takes place between various units and cross-nationalteams, and even foster a sense of belonging to a global family, as a kind of soft controlmechanism (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a, 1999b; Piekkari & Tietze, 2012).

In a qualitative study of a French MNC that had implemented English as a linguafranca, Neeley (2013) found three main reasons why this particular company hadchosen to opt for an English-only language policy; firstly, external pressure from custo-mers, partners, suppliers, and competitors; secondly, a need to delegate tasks to a dispersedworkforce; and thirdly, recent international acquisitions. These findings can be seen inrelation to Thomas (2008) discussion where he argues that English language policiesare often used for pragmatic reasons, such as removing linguistic barriers, although itmay also be used with the goal of establishing identity, e.g. to signal belonging to an inter-national community.

Ten language policy challenges

Considering the importance of efficient communication for collaboration and team per-formance, and especially in MNCs where employees must find a way to communicatedespite their different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, there are good reasons fortaking an extra look at what English lingua franca policies actually entail. The following

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 3

discussion will look into language policy problems from an international managementperspective, and discuss these as language policy challenges as they have been identifiedin the existing international business and management literature. An overview of theten language policy challenges and the effects of these challenges is presented in Figure 1.

Communicative challenges

Linguistic diversity has been called ‘[t]he most obvious international communicationproblem’ (Kilpatrick, 1984, p. 33). The problem is particularly prevalent in MNCs,which are likely to hire employees with different levels of competence in the common cor-porate language. Previous empirical studies on the use of English language policies, forexample the one by Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002) reveal how employees withlimited English skills can be a potential source of communication blockage, miscommu-nication and other communicative problems within the multinational network. Anumber of other studies demonstrate how the language barrier may lead to misunder-standings, misinterpretation and loss of rhetorical skills (see e.g. Blazejewski, 2006;Greco, Renaud, & Taquechel, 2013; Marschan, Welch, & Welch, 1997).

Differences in communication styles due to different cultural backgrounds may alsocause problems in cross-border communication, as reported by Malkamäki and Herberts(2014, pp. 46–47). In this study of language practices in a Finnish firm, a native Finnreported that ‘I’ve had an Italian boss for 13 years now […] when an Italian speaks 100words, he’s trying to say 10 words. When I as a Finn speak 10 words, I mean everysingle one of them’ (translated from Swedish).

Fairbrother’s (2018) study of the use of English in the Japanese subsidiaries of EuropeanMNCs offers another example of how different communication styles can be ascribed tocultural differences. Fairbrother’s findings reveal that some of the local Japanese

Figure 1. Ten language policy challenges.

4 G. R. SANDEN

employees experienced the use of English as face-threatening because of unfamiliar com-munication norms. Even in cases of miscommunication or incorrect language use, challen-ging the work of one’s manager could lead to open conflict and potentially damage one’sown job security for employees at lower hierarchical levels. Both Malkamäki and Herberts(2014) and Fairbrother’s (2018) studies resonate with Hall’s (see Hall & Hall, 1990) clas-sical model of high and low context communication and the challenges associated withcommunicating across the two categories.

The implementation of a corporate lingua franca may also affect the way in whichemployees choose to communicate with each other. Lauring and Tange (2010) andTange and Lauring (2009) describe how the decision to implement English as a corporatelanguage in Danish companies reduced informal interaction in the workplace, which ulti-mately led to more formal and task-oriented communication. A similar tendency of non-native English speakers avoiding small talk and informal communication, has beenobserved by Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, and Kankaanranta (2005) in two cross-bordermergers of Swedish and Finnish companies. Piekkari et al. (2014, p. 235) refer to thisphenomenon as the ‘silencing effect’.

Interestingly, the ‘silencing’ effect has also been observed at the senior managementlevel, even though top managers are likely to have more advanced language skills thanemployees at the front-line level, due to higher educational backgrounds and internationalexposure (Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2011, p. 289). In particular, Piekkari, Oxelheim,and Randøy (2015, pp. 10–11) found that linguistic diversity and the introduction ofEnglish as a working language in Nordic boards led some of the board members toturn ‘silent’.

Whereas much of the literature focuses on communicative problems for non-nativespeakers of English, it is clear that native English speakers may also experience commu-nicative problems resulting from an English-only language policy. Henderson (2005,p. 77), for example, notes that it is widely assumed that English speakers hold an advantagein international English-speaking teams, and some scholars use the label ‘free-rider’ fornative English speakers, see e.g. Van Parijs (2009, p. 155). Yet, the wide range ofEnglish accents may cause comprehension problems for any English speaker, native aswell as non-native (Hwang, 2013), and native English speakers may also have the challengeof making themselves understood by non-native English speaking colleagues (Jenkins,2015). A related problem is that the many different English accents may be difficult tounderstand (e.g. Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Ehrenreich, 2010; Śliwa & Johans-son, 2014). Today, not only do studies of language in organisations describe the role ofEnglish in the internal communication of global firms, but they also often discuss the exist-ence of multiple Englishes (Tietze, 2008, pp. 71–83; see also Kachru, 1985, 1992).

Employee performance

Several studies illustrate how language affects perceptions of oneself and others at all hier-archical levels (Charles, 2007). At the front-line level, corporate language policies maynegatively affect the well-being and motivation of employees. In a study of a FrenchMNC that had implemented English as a common corporate language, Neeley (2013)and Neeley, Hinds, and Cramton (2012) found that almost all non-native speakers ofEnglish experienced some degree of status loss, defined as the subjective experience of

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 5

decreased professional regard, irrespective of their English fluency level (Neeley, 2013,p. 476). The concept of status loss captures the dynamics of esteem and privilege inthe workplace, which is associated with individual prestige, respect and influence.When comparing these findings brought forth by Neeley (2013) and Neeley et al.(2012) to previous research on the relationship between organisational performanceand employees’ self-esteem, occurrence of status loss at the individual level may havea negative impact not only on individual employee performance but also on the pro-ductivity of the firm. In particular, Pierce and Gardner (2004) observe that individualswith high self-esteem are likely to have stronger self-efficacy than those with low self-esteem, which under almost all conditions will contribute to a higher level of perform-ance (see also Bandura, 1997).

In addition, studies conducted by Lüdi (2016) and Lüdi, Meier, Kohler, and Yanapra-sart (2016) in multilingual workplaces in Switzerland demonstrate that English-only pol-icies can negatively affect performance and work quality. Some respondents in thesestudies were heavily criticising the company’s exclusive use of English and expressedconcern for the effect of the language policy on creativity and innovation in the organis-ation, for example by stating that ‘[a] lot of ideas really do get lost if you simply opt forEnglish’ (Lüdi et al., 2016, p. 68). This argument is emphasised further by Lüdi (2016,p. 77) who states that ‘[t]he price of an ‘English-only’ strategy is very high, including apossible lack of creativity, loss of information, the malaise resulting from not being ableto use one’s own language’.

Language and communication skills are also important for managers and employeesseeking promotion into management positions. A leader’s ability to be viewed as aleader, i.e. leader emergence, has been coupled with their quality of communication(Paunova, 2015), in particular in virtual teams (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren,2009). Hence, the ability to fulfil key criteria of successful communication – identifiedby Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2010) as clarity, directness, and politeness –is essential not only in order to maintain communicative competence but also todevelop leadership credibility. A corporate language policy will by default set the standardfor successful communication in a multilingual business environment.

These empirical studies demonstrate that language policies not only affect employees aspart of their everyday work life, but also at a personal level. If non-native speakers of thecorporate language become cognitively depleted (Volk, Köhler, & Pudelko, 2014) or fru-strated because of their language situation on a daily basis, their frustration is likely toresult in lower employee satisfaction, which again is related to lower performance levels(Charles, 2007). Ultimately, employees who feel dissatisfied with the language regime oftheir workplace may choose to terminate their employment, which could lead to costlyrecruitment processes for the company in question. This phenomenon has been observedby e.g. Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, and Säntti (2005) in the Nordic financial service companyMeritaNordbanken (now Nordea) following the company’s implementation of Swedish asthe common corporate language, and in Neeley’s (2017) study of the Japanese online retai-ler Rakuten, after having implemented English as their common corporate language. Inthe latter example, 36% of engineers in Rakuten responded that they had high intentionsto leave the company shortly after the language policy had been announced (Neeley, 2017,p. 39).

6 G. R. SANDEN

Collaboration and group dynamics

A number of authors emphasise the importance of language as a determinant for theestablishment of relationships and successful collaboration with subordinates and othercolleagues (Boies, Fiset, & Gill, 2015; Chen, Geluykens, & Choi, 2006; Goviandarajan &Gupta, 2001; Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014; Kramer & Crespy, 2011). The pioneeringcase study conducted by Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999a, 1999b) in a Finnish MNC, KoneElevators, illustrates that language policies may affect collaboration among employees tothe extent that they interfere with the company’s operational processes. This particularstudy of English as a common corporate language revealed that a new organisational struc-ture appeared on the basis of individual language skills, because employees groupedtogether with other speakers of their native language. Consequently, a new ‘shadow struc-ture’ emerged from the various language clusters. The existence of the shadow structuredemonstrates the power of language as a glue so strong that it connects employees in away which not only influences the internal communicative environment, but actually chal-lenges the functioning of the official organisational structure, thereby threatening themanagement’s ability to control the company’s activities.

Language has also been found to act as an effective mechanism of discrimination, i.e. bydiscriminating employees with inadequate language skills (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari,2002; Fairbrother, 2018; Zander, Mockaitis, & Harzing, 2011). In a large multinationalenterprise, proficiency in the corporate language is likely to vary, and many employeesmay not have any experience with the chosen language at all (Feely & Harzing, 2003;Neeley, 2017). As argued by Bourdieu (1991), language is an object of social inclusionand exclusion which may determine to what extent members are involved in communi-cation, or excluded from it. Also Harzing and Feely’s (2008) discuss that language canbe seen as a symbol of in-and-out groups which creates and maintains group boundaries.

Ehrenreich (2010), Neeley (2013), Neeley et al. (2012), and Sanden and Lønsmann(2018) reveal how non-native speakers of English may choose different coping strategieswhen encountering native speakers of English. In Ehrenreich’s study of a German technol-ogy company, all interviewees reported that they had acquired a large repertoire of tech-niques in the course of their international careers, such as comprehension checks, askingfor clarification and repetition, etc. In Neeley/Neeley et al.’s and Sanden and Lønsmann’sstudy, coping strategies also included avoiding native English-speaking colleagues.Although the adoption of a common corporate language was intended to create ashared linguistic arena for all employees, the result of the language policy was in somecases quite the opposite (cf. Piekkari & Zander, 2005, p. 7).

Reallocation of power

A corporate language policy that favours one language over all others implies that nativeor high-proficiency speakers of the corporate language find themselves in a more fortunateposition than those without the same language skills (Neeley & Dumas, 2016). Marschanet al. (1997; see also Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002) found that language-competentemployees, such as expatriates or bilingual employees, may take the opportunity to gainmore influence than they would have had under normal circumstances. These individualsare labelled ‘gatekeepers’ by Marschan et al. (1997, p. 596), as they have the power to filter,

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 7

distort and block information, possibly in a negative, counter-productive way, if they wishto do so, or vice versa – in a positive way – to their advantage.

For employees with little or no knowledge of the corporate language, a lingua francapolicy may prevent access to important information (Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, &Piekkari, 2006, p. 410; Tietze, Cohen, & Musson, 2003, p. 103). Locally employed staffat foreign subsidiaries will for example have great difficulties assessing whether or nottheir bilingual manager presents them with correct and accurate information if they areunable to speak the language of communication between the headquarters and the subsidi-ary (see e.g. Søderberg’s, 2012, study of communication between a Danish wind turbineproducer and the company’s Indian R&D hub). This may be further complicated if thesubsidiary manager engages in gatekeeping activities, which was found in Logemannand Piekkari’s (2015) case study of a European manufacturing company. Here, Logemannand Piekkari found that one subsidiary manager self-translated headquarter information(from the group president) with the result that he (p. 42) ‘disconnected his local organiz-ation from the rest of ENOQ [case]. He thereby attempted to reclaim power over mean-ings from headquarters and to resist the increased degree of centralization andstandardization.’

Another disadvantage associated with adopting a corporate language is that it maynegatively affect the organisation’s ability to retain talented individuals without the necess-ary language competencies. Piekkari, Vaara, Tienari, and Säntti (2005) discuss how thecorporate language may act as a glass ceiling where promising employees are preventedfrom advancing in the organisation. In companies where lingua franca policies are prac-tised to the strictest degree, career paths can be seen as language-dependent, as argued byPiekkari et al. (2005, pp. 339–341; see also Piekkari, 2008). This could lead to feelings ofjob insecurity for the employees in question (Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990).

Interestingly, previous studies have found that non-native speakers of a corporatelanguage may perceive native speakers as dominant, or accuse them of trying to assumepower even when this is not the case (Henderson, 2005, pp. 77–78). Vaara et al. (2005)and Piekkari et al. (2005) examined the human resource implications following the con-troversial decision to implement Swedish as a common corporate language in Merita-Nordbanken, a merger of the Finnish Merita Bank and the Swedish Nordbanken. Vaaraet al. (2005) describe how Swedish-speaking Finns were regarded as privileged by non-Swedish speaking Finns, and even sometimes blamed for the problems arising from theSwedish language policy. Based on these behavioural patterns, Vaara et al. (2005; seealso Vaara & Tienari, 2003) draw a parallel to the historical post-colonial relationshipbetween Finland and Sweden, where the language regulation in this particular cross-border merger appeared to feed into previous conceptions of Swedish superiority andFinnish inferiority. This finding demonstrates that a corporate language policy mayinfluence an organisation’s power structure irrespective of whether the power to act isrealised or latent (see also Blazejewski, 2006, pp. 86–88; Janssens, Lambert, & Steyaert,2004).

De facto vs. de jure language policies

Several previous studies have found that the official language policy may be underminedby the language practices of employees. This was one of the key findings of McEntee-

8 G. R. SANDEN

Atalianis (2006) study of language policy, planning and practice in the International Mar-itime Organisation (IMO), a specialised agency of the UN. Although IMO officiallyclaimed to use six official languages and three working languages, McEntee-Atalianisfound that English functioned as the main tool of communication at the lower hierarchicallevels of the organisation. Similar tendencies in other international and supranationalorganisations has lead Phillipson (2008) to coin the term ‘lingua frankensteinia’, whichrefers to the threat that English as a lingua franca represent to linguistic diversity.

Previous research has also discovered that the official decision to use one language forcompany-wide operations and activities may be undermined by the convenience of usingthe local language if there is a mismatch between the two. Sanden and Lønsmann’s (2018)study investigated front-line employees’ language practices in three Scandinavian MNCsthat had implemented English language policies. Their findings showed that the compa-nies’ monolingual language policies did not reflect the multilingual complexity faced byfront-line employees. Hence, Sanden and Lønsmann (2018) introduced the term ‘discre-tionary power’ to describe how employees may choose to divert from using English as acommon corporate language: ‘The concept of discretionary power predicts that front-line employees are likely to use their discretion when policies are incompatible with every-day demands of the job’ (Sanden & Lønsmann, 2018, p. 127).

Fredriksson et al.’s (2006) study of the multinational engineering and electronicscompany Siemens found that the common corporate language is not always ascommon as the term suggests. Based on interviews with Finnish and German employeesin the company, Fredriksson et al. (2006) observed how informants’ geographical location,hierarchical position and mother tongue affected how they perceived the two corporatelanguages English and German. Furthermore, informants in Siemens were unable tolocate the exact time of the language policy decision, while some questioned whether ithad ever been made at all. This led to a range of different interpretations and expectationsin the company of what English as a corporate language actually meant.

However, it is not that unusual for companies to implement English language policieswithout formal decision making processes. Sanden and Kankaanranta (2018) refer to suchpolicies as ‘non-formalised language policies’ in their study of three MNCs headquarteredin Denmark and Finland. The three case companies included in this study all used Englishas a common corporate language without ever having made the decision to do so. Sandenand Kankaanranta (2018, p. 13) observe that ‘non-formalised English language policiesprimarily occur as a consequence of employees’ established language practices ratherthan a policy developed with the purpose of establishing what the language practices ofthe employees should be’. Also Ehrenreich (2010), Cogo and Yanaprasart (2018), Loge-mann and Piekkari (2015), Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2012), and Millar,Cifuentes, and Jensen (2013) provide examples of companies that use English as adefault language without having implemented it by means of an official language policy.Although non-formalised language policies open up for flexibility in terms of languagechoice, it may also leave employees without a common reference point, which accordingto Sanden and Kankaanranta (2018), may result in confusion and conflict amongemployees.

On the other side of the spectrum, Tange (2008, 2009) researched professional languageworkers, i.e. employees with an educational background in language or communication(Tange, 2009, p. 131), in the Danish MNC Grundfos, a company with a very

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 9

comprehensive and detailed language policy. In this study, Tange found that respondentsin Grundfos tended to over-emphasise the importance of the company’s language policy.In line with the previous studies mentioned above, Tange (2008, p. 156) argues that thereis a discrepancy between language workers’ commitment to the language policy and howemployees in the organisation perceived the relevance of the language policy as part oftheir everyday job.

Language policies not aligned with the overall business plan

A number of scholars advocate the strategic importance of adequate language manage-ment for the success of international operations. Marschan et al. (1997, p. 596) arguethat ‘[t]he ultimate objective is to develop a fit between a company’s language profileand its strategies’, which is why ‘language needs to be considered a key element in themanagement of a multinational’. In line with this view, Janssens et al. (2004) state thatlanguage strategies must be seen as core organisational issues, and Fredriksson et al.(2006) and Van den Born and Peltokorpi (2010) argue that corporate decision makersmust align the language policy with the strategic plan of the organisation and includeissues of language and communication in the general business strategy.

Luo and Shenkar (2006; building on Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989) provide some generalguidelines to how this might be done, while emphasising that the language strategyshould follow the internationalisation strategy of the firm in its choice of approach offoreign markets. If the MNC parent operates according to a multidomestic (in Bartlettand Ghoshal’s terminology ‘multinational’) strategy which emphasises responsiveness tolocal requirements and competition within each country, the use of the local languagemay foster a firmer connection with the local market and improve managerialefficiency. The adoption of one common corporate language for internal communicationmay be difficult to implement, as there are external pressures to use multiple languages inthe different markets (Luo & Shenkar, 2006, p. 328).

This is also what Slangen (2011) found in his study of entry mode, based on 231 entriesby Dutch MNCs in 48 countries. In particular, Slangen discusses how the choice of acquir-ing a subsidiary, which involves taking over the existing workforce of locally employedstaff members, requires more (vertical) communication than a greenfield entry, whichinvolves the establishment of a new business and the recruitment of new personnelwho voluntarily choose to join an international firm. For this reason, Slangen (2011,p. 1720) argues that greater linguistic distance between home and host locations increasesthe likelihood of greenfield entry, although this relationship depends somewhat on theplanned level of subsidiary autonomy. If the subsidiary is granted considerabledecision-making authority, there is less need for the parent to coordinate and monitorits operations, and consequently, there will be less need for extensive headquarter-subsidi-ary communication. However, in contrast to Slangen (2011), Ghoshal, Korine, and Szu-lanski’s (1994) study of vertical communication patterns in the subsidiaries of theJapanese firm Matsushita and the Dutch firm N.V. Philips, found that subsidiary auton-omy/degree of centralisation had no influence on inter-unit communication.

Luo and Shenkar (2006) furthermore argue that a common corporate language is abetter fit for the global strategy than the multidomestic strategy, as the global strategy pre-supposes more standardisation (i.e. global integration) of products and work processes

10 G. R. SANDEN

across national markets. Hence, Luo and Shenkar observe that a common language mayfacilitate more efficient internal communication, both vertically between headquarters andlocal units, and horizontally between units at the same hierarchical level. However, theeffectiveness of a common corporate language (English) in horizontal communication isdisputed by Marschan et al. (1997), who discuss how inadequate English skills mayoperate as a barrier to cross-border communication, especially for middle and lowerlevel personnel.

Finally, the transnational strategy may be seen as a combination of the global and themultidomestic strategy, as it seeks to balance the desire for global efficiency with localresponsiveness (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Harzing, 2000; Ketchen & Short, 2012). Luoand Shenkar (2006) argue that appropriate language policies within the transnationalmode must fulfil two purposes: firstly, to minimise any potential conflict between globalintegration and local adaptation and, secondly, to expand the discretion of foreign sub-units. Thus, the MNC’s parent may choose to implement either a single common languageor allow multiple functional languages to be used. Several previous studies point out thatthe latter alternative involving parallel language use between a common corporatelanguage and local language(s) is common practice. Parallel language use has forexample been observed in financial service companies – such as in Chew’s (2005) studyof banks in Hong Kong, and Kingsley’s (2010) study of banks in Luxembourg – as aresponse to pressure for both global integration and local responsiveness (for internationalcompanies in the early stages of internationalisation not covered by Luo & Shenkar, 2006;see Piekkari et al., 2014, who focus explicitly on global business expansion).

Inappropriate follow-up initiatives

There are many ways in which MNCs may choose to address issues of language and com-munication for company-internal purposes. Corporate language policies may for examplebe supplemented with different types of language management initiatives or measures,such as language training (SanAntonio, 1987) or in-house translation services (Piekkari,Welch, Welch, Peltonen, & Vesa, 2013) which may be referred to as ‘language manage-ment tools’ (Feely & Winslow, 2006; Sanden, 2016a). Language management tools canbe defined as an umbrella term for the various activities and initiatives companiesdeploy in an attempt to satisfy their language needs, or to overcome language-related chal-lenges that may arise in internal communication situations (CILT, 2006, 2011). These typeof tools are implemented by the companies’ leadership, i.e. as a form of organised languagemanagement, which stands in contrast to simple language management occurring at theindividual level (Nekvapil & Nekula, 2006; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009). As stated by Nek-vapil and Sherman (2009, pp. 192–193): ‘Unlike individuals, companies advocate above allstrategies that are meant to have a long term effect and are thus aimed at the removal ofproblems in a number of similar interactions’.

However, if language management tools are implemented incautiously without payingattention to or acknowledging the needs of the company, the effect of these tools may belimited. Language training, for example, may seem like a relatively easy activity toimplement, but as argued by Reeves and Wright (1996, p. 4), general language coursesare often ineffective when they are designed without any reference to the specificcompany or without considering the capabilities and language proficiency of the staff.

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 11

Also Feely (2004), Feely and Harzing (2003) Harzing et al. (2011), Lester (1994) note thatthere may be considerable costs associated with backing an English corporate languagepolicy with comprehensive language training for employees. In a worst-case scenario,this costly and time-consuming language management tool may be nothing but a wasteof time and money – at least in the words of Feely (2004, p. 87). As in the case of corporatelanguage policies, language management tools are also likely to be most efficient whenadopted on the basis of the overall business strategy of the company.

Reactive language policies

Kangasharju et al. (2010) carried out a multiple case study of six Finnish firms, where theyinvestigated and analysed the content and messages of these companies’ language policies.Overall, the authors were surprised to discover that the language policies were unclearabout their relationship with the companies’ strategic goals and, furthermore, that theyusually did not include any information about who was responsible for their implemen-tation. Kangasharju et al. (2010) argue that corporate language policies are often reactive,in the sense that they are usually based on some language need the company has experi-enced in the past. Also Lauring and Tange (2010, p. 317) observe that companies couldbenefit from developing proactive language policies that can foresee future needs and rec-ommend that ‘international managers adopt a pro-active stand on language diversity’,suggesting initiatives such as ‘recruitment, selection, training, management developmentand performance management’ (p. 328). Likewise, Griffith (2002, p. 264) argues that ‘byproactively managing a firm’s communication processes in international relationships, afirm can develop strong partnerships in the face of incongruence of national and organ-isational cultures, facilitating the rapid response to market opportunities and challenges,thus enhancing performance’.

Welch and Welch (2018) provide some insight into how a company’s internationali-sation process may affect the development of a language strategy. Here, Welch andWelch (2018) suggest that one reason why companies tend to develop reactive languagepolicies is because language related initiatives often are launched by individuals as theyencounter language differences in the field, for example international sales staff, ratherthan the company’s top management. Instead, the authors advocate a co-evolutionaryapproach to internationalisation and language management, where time is seen as a criti-cal component of a company’s language policy implementation (see also Welch &Welch, 2008, p. 19).

As argued by Yanaprasart (2016, p. 205), big, medium and small companies are facingdifferent challenges in terms of the time, costs, and resources associated with proactivelanguage management strategies (see also Incelli, 2008). Still, the costs associated withimplementing proactive language policies may be small compared to the costs of losingout on local market opportunities. A number of studies suggest that companies maygain significant benefits by developing formal language strategies to support their inter-national ventures. This is for instance one of the main findings from the ELAN surveyexamining the ‘Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign LanguageSkills in Enterprise’ (CILT, 2006). Also other EU-funded projects advocate the role oflanguage and communication to improve export performance (e.g. CILT, 2011; EuropeanCommission, 2008).

12 G. R. SANDEN

Inadequate language policies due to unawareness

In order to address prevalent issues of language and intercultural communication in a suc-cessful manner, it is necessary to have an idea of what these issues are, and what kind ofimplications they may have. As argued by Reeves and Wright (1996, p. 3) ‘[c]ommunica-tion problems can be approached in a number of ways and solutions are numerous […][but] no solution is possible until the organisation’s communication environment is fullyunderstood’. Likewise, Piekkari and Zander (2005, p. 8), state that the first step of efficientmultilingual management is ‘increased awareness and knowledge of how language diver-sity in the MNC context operates’.

For this reason, Feely and colleagues (Feely, 2004; Feely & Reeves, 2001; Feely &Winslow, 2006) discuss the term ‘language awareness’, based on the work of Reevesand Wright (1996). Language awareness is also discussed by CILT (2006, 2011) andNasreen, Bragado, Vicente, and Hagen (1999). According to Feely (2004, p. 228) ‘acompany would be expected to demonstrate its language awareness in seven discreteareas.’ These areas are (Feely, 2004, p. 228); (a) formalising a corporate language policy,(b) developing language training programmes, (c) conducting linguistic audits, (d) includ-ing language skills in job selection, (e) using language service providers, (f) using computersystems, intranet and web sites in multiple languages, and (g) providing brochures, tech-nical literature and publications in multiple languages. Many of these recommendationsfall under the definition of ‘language management tools’, as discussed above.

A number of previous studies have found that companies refrain from developinglanguage policies or strategies assuming that ‘English is enough’. Most studies in thisarea have been conducted with regard to external communication, and in particular inexport and international trade (e.g. CILT, 2006, 2011; Clarke, 2000; Crick, 1999; Hagen,1999; Peel & Eckart, 1996; Verstraete-Hansen, 2008). Clarke (2000), for example,looked into the language practices of 205 Irish exporting companies. In this study, 87%of the respondents expressed the view that English is likely to become the generallyaccepted language of business throughout the EU; hence, foreign languages were notseen as important. A similar study was conducted by Crick (1999) of 185 firms basedin the UK. Crick found it ‘worrying’ to observe that many responded that they refrainedfrom foreign language use ‘because English was widely spoken’ (Crick, 1999, p. 27). Like-wise, in Verstraete-Hansen’s (2008) survey of 312 Danish companies, 31.5% of all compa-nies reported that they had experienced language differences as a barrier to internationalcooperation. Interestingly, 41% of the companies in the study ascribed these language pro-blems to their trading partners’ limited English language skills. Consequently, on the basisof these studies, one could argue that firms display ‘language unawareness’ both withregard to language and communication problems in their own organisation, but also una-wareness of the fact that the world is multilingual (Phillipson, 2000).

Inadequate language policies due to unresponsiveness

Following the discussion of the previous section, a number of studies find that companiesmay not just be unaware, but actively refrain from developing appropriate language pol-icies. It makes sense to distinguish between unawareness and unresponsiveness (Feely &Winslow, 2006), as an unaware company will ignore the language needs of the

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 13

organisation owing to insufficient knowledge, whereas an unresponsive company willdeliberately choose not to address language and communication issues they are awareexist. It is argued in CILT (2011, p. 13) that even if companies recognise how importantlanguage is for successful international business operations, they may still choose not toprioritise investments in language and language-related activities.

There may be different explanations as to why this is the case. One reason could bethat internal communication is viewed as less important than external communication.The strategic value of language as a marketing tool directed towards customers and con-sumers may be more visible, and therefore easier to act upon, than language as a humanresource (HR) tool for employees within the company (Piekkari et al., 2014, p. 244).Whereas the costs of investing in language and communication are easy to measure,the benefits may be less obvious (Piekkari et al., 2014, p. 32). Indeed, Kaplan andBaldauf (1997, p. 139) write that: ‘The real problem that language planners face is thatmost costs occur in real time. […] However, benefits are slow to develop and hard tomeasure’ (see also Baldauf, 2006).

A few studies suggest that smaller firms in particular may find it difficult to prioritiseinvestments in language and communication due to cost constraints (CILT, 2006, p. 42,47; Peel & Eckart, 1996; Schroedler, 2018). Others argue that foreign language skillsmay be even more valuable for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and theirexport opportunities than for larger firms (Crick, 1999; Garcia & Otheguy, 1994; Incelli,2008). In a study of 506 SMEs in the Lazio region of Italy, Incelli (2008) found that themajority of the SMEs did not have the resources to invest in knowledge acquisitionneeded for international success. As a result, the small companies experienced a generalinadequacy in foreign language competence, and were therefore unable to fully exploittheir export market potential (Incelli, 2008, p. 119).

Discussion: from language policies to language management

Increased globalisation and movement of people across national and linguistic bordershave led to increased social, cultural and linguistic diversity all over the world. The mag-nitude and scale of this diversity is now known as ‘superdiversity’, a term originally coinedby Vertovec (2007) to describe the implications of immigration and multiculturalism inBritain (see also Blommaert & Rampton, 2011). However, the concept of superdiversityis not restricted to any particular context. As discussed in this paper, MNCs constitutea prime arena for studying linguistic diversity – or linguistic superdiversity – as these cor-porations consist of employees with different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. As thestandardisation of linguistic, communicative and socio-cultural processes can be oneway of limiting superdiversity within the MNC network (Nekvapil & Sherman, 2018,p. 342), leaders of multinational, multilingual organisations may find it tempting toadopt lingua franca policies in an attempt to reduce the communicative barriers presentedby linguistic heterogeneity.

Adopting a common corporate language may provide several benefits for companieschallenged by an unsurmountable number of languages, to the extent that cross-bordercommunication is rendered impossible without some form of standardisation. It hasnot been the intention of this paper to point to the benefits of such language policies.Instead, the focus has been directed towards the many potential pitfalls that a company’s

14 G. R. SANDEN

leadership should be aware of before opting for the supposedly cheap and easy solution ofimplementing a common corporate language (Sanden, 2016b).

In sum, previous research has found that language policies can have serious negativeconsequences on several aspects of organisational behaviour and outcomes. The chal-lenges discussed in this paper are not uniquely restricted to language and communicationproblems, although these challenges may be the most obvious ones, as communicativechallenges often are easy to observe first-hand in multilingual environments. Yet, asthis review has shown, inadequate language management can be the source of challengesthat can hamper the overall productivity and performance of business organisations, orlimit the success of companies’ internationalisation strategies for example in regard toexport or market expansion (Janssens & Steyaert, 2014). It is therefore not unrealisticto claim that the implementation of a common corporate language in some cases maycreate more problems than it solves.

The overview of previous studies presented in this paper has shown that languagepolicy implementation affects employees at all organisational levels, across professionaloccupations. The extent to which language pertains the MNCs’ activities and operationssuggests that it is necessary to shift focus from a single language policy to a more compre-hensive language management approach. Thus, rather than aiming at standardisinglanguage practices through corporate language policies, efficient handling of linguisticdiversity is likely to involve follow-up initiatives by making language managementtools, such as translation or language training, available to employees. Whereas a corpor-ate language policy can be seen as a regulatory device, corporate language managementalso involves managing language through various activities and initiatives directedtowards a specific goal or designed to fulfil a certain purpose in language and communi-cation-related areas.

Changing perspective from language policy to language management also involves awillingness to invest in language management tools. As mentioned above, reluctance topay for language-related services may be one of the reasons why companies refrainfrom making such investments (CILT, 2006; Peel & Eckart, 1996). This finding raisessome questions regarding the two concepts of costs and expenditures. Whereaslanguage-related expenditures only measure the direct monetary outlay related to theadoption of a language policy or language management tool, the total costs also includeother factors than the mere monetary expenses (Grin, 2003a, p. 93), for example thevalue of time spent in language classes for employees undertaking language training. Inorder to evaluate the actual costs of a language policy or language management tool, itis therefore necessary to consider all costs associated with its implementation. Acommon corporate language may seem like an inexpensive solution, however, is notnecessarily the most cost-effective solution once the total costs have been taken intoaccount. Additional non-monetary costs are often described as ‘hidden’ in the literature(Piekkari et al., 2014, p. 31; Welch & Welch, 2008, p. 347) because they cannot bemeasured in the same way as monetary expenses. Acknowledging the existence oflanguage-related human costs such as stress, status loss, and discrimination suggeststhat a cost-effective approach to language management requires managers to look for sol-utions where linguistic diversity is addressed with the lowest possible use of financial andhuman resources, or where the best possible effect is achieved, given a certain amount offinancial and human resources (Grin, 2003b, p. 42).

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 15

This line of thinking leads to a revaluation of how multilingual organisations best canmanage multilingualism in their internal communication. The main argument presentedin this paper is that companies aiming to handle linguistic diversity in an efficient manner,most likely will have to move away from the idea of the common corporate language policyand rather focus on language management as a group of activities targeted at the needs of alinguistically diverse workforce. This does not mean that the use of English should bebanned in international business communication. English as a lingua franca may workwell in situations where employees have the same preconditions and attitudes towardsEnglish-medium communication. However, the use of English should not be the sole sol-ution to multilingualism and linguistic diversity, but rather, one of many viable options(Lüdi, 2016). Dependent on the situation and the linguistic capabilities of the targetgroup, the use of English could for example be supplemented with local languages, trans-lation or interpretation services for employees, or selective recruitment of personnel withspecific language competences who can facilitate smooth communication betweendifferent organisational units (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2014). Considering the current econ-omic climate with rapid progress and advancements in technology, changing demo-graphics and employee competence, it is now more important than ever for companiesto have a future vision, also in terms of language management.

Having said that, it is clear that a comprehensive language management approachrequires some understanding of the linguistic reality of those who are affected by thelanguage management activities. Therefore, there is a need for more empirical studieson the topic of corporate language management that considers other languages thanEnglish. Many MNCs are large employers and are consequently made up of employeeswith different backgrounds and different linguistic qualifications. Further empiricalstudies can help identify the different language needs of employees and how theseneeds can be addressed through different language management tools. Ethnographicresearch methods seem particularly beneficial for gaining hands-on knowledge aboutlanguage and communication practices in multilingual workplaces, which again mayguide the development of well-conceived language management initiatives.

Conclusion

Just as all employees use language in one way or another, language policies affect allemployees in one way or another. This paper has reviewed previous studies on languagepolicies in the international business and management literature, and has demonstratedhow corporate language policies are associated with certain challenges that may resultin undesirable outcomes. Based on what existing research has found, this conceptualpaper suggests that efficient handling of linguistic diversity requires a shift in focusfrom language policies to language management, and in continuation of that, a shiftfrom language policy expenditures to language management costs. Future research mayconsider how and by what means cost-effective language management can be carriedout in practice in real-life multilingual organisations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

16 G. R. SANDEN

Notes on contributor

Guro R. Sanden is Assistant Professor at the Department of Culture and Global Studies at AalborgUniversity. Her research focuses on the role of corporate language strategies in multinational cor-porations and the relationship between national language policies and corporate law. Before enter-ing academia, she held various industry positions, including management trainee in the Danishinsurance company Tryg.

ORCID

Guro R. Sanden http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5450-6320

References

Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecologycontext. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2 & 3), 147–170.

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of trans-formational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 651–663.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Aarnio, C. (2011). Shifting the faultiness of language: A quantitative

functional-level exploration of language use in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business,46(3), 288–295.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989).Managing across borders. The transnational solution. London:Hutchinson.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building competitive advantage through people. MIT SloanManagement Review, 43(2), 34–41.

Bergenholtz, H., & Johnsen, M. (2006). Language policy and communication policy – same samebut different? Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 37, 95–114.

Blazejewski, S. (2006). Transferring value-infused organizational practices in multinational compa-nies: A conflict perspective. In M. Geppert, & M. Mayer (Eds.), Global, national and local prac-tices in multinational companies (pp. 63–104). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–21.Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship

between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080–1094.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. L. (2012). Corporate languages and strategic agility: Trapped in your

jargon or lost in translation? California Management Review, 54(3), 77–97.Charles, M. (2007). Language matters in global communication: Article based on ORA lecture,

October 2006. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 260–282.Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal com-

munication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9–29.Chen, S., Geluykens, R., & Choi, C. J. (2006). The importance of language in global teams: A lin-

guistic perspective. Management International Review, 46(6), 679–696.Chew, K. S. (2005). An investigation of the English language skills used by new entrants in banks in

Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 423–435.CILT. (2006). ELAN: Effects on the European economy of shortages of foreign language skills in enter-

prise. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/elan_en.pdf

CILT. (2011). Report on language management strategies and best practice in European SMEs: ThePIMLICO Project. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/pimlico-full-report_en.pdf

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 17

Clarke, W. M. (2000). The use of foreign languages by Irish exporters. European Journal ofMarketing, 34(1/2), 80–90.

Cogo, A., & Yanaprasart, P. (2018). “English is the language of business”: An exploration oflanguage ideologies in two European corporate contexts. In T. Sherman, & J. Nekvapil (Eds.),English in business and commerce: Interactions and policies (pp. 96–116). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Crick, D. (1999). An investigation into SMEs’ use of languages in their export operations.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(1), 19–31.

Dhir, K. S., & Gòkè-Pariolá, A. (2002). The case for language policies in multinational corporations.Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 241–251.

Ehrenreich, S. (2010). English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation:Meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 408–431.

European Commission. (2008). Languages mean business. Companies work better with languages.Recommendations from the Business Forum for Multilingualism established by the EuropeanCommission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/languages/pdf/davignon_en.pdf

Fairbrother, L. (2018). The management of everyday English interactions in the Japanese branchesof European multinationals. In T. Sherman, & J. Nekvapil (Eds.), English in business and com-merce: Interactions and policies (pp. 149–171). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fairbrother, L., Nekvapil, J., & Sloboda, M. (Eds.). (2018). The language management approach: Afocus on research methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Feely, A. J. (2004). The impact of the language barrier on the management of multinational com-panies (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Aston University, Birmingham.

Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A. W. (2003). Language management in multinational companies. CrossCultural Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 37–52.

Feely, A. J., & Reeves, N. (2001). Suspected language problems – Your company needs a languagecheck-up. Aston Business School Doctoral Working Paper, New Series 37.

Feely, A. J., & Winslow, D. (2006). Talking sense: A research study of language skills management inmajor companies. London: CILT.

Ferguson, G. (2012). English in language policy and management. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). TheCambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 475–498). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. (2006). The multinational corporation as amultilingual organization. The notion of a common corporate language. CorporateCommunication: An International Journal, 11(4), 406–423.

Garcia, O., & Otheguy, R. (1994). The value of speaking a LOTE in U.S. Business. The ANNALS ofthe American Academy of Political and Social Science, 532(1), 99–122.

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an interorganizationalnetwork. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 603–626.

Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corpor-ations. Management Science, 40(1), 96–110.

Goviandarajan, V., & Gupta, A. K. (2011). Building an effective global business team. MIT SloanManagement Review, 42(4), 63–71.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as foreignlanguage’. London: British Council.

Greco, L., Renaud, P., & Taquechel, R. (2013). The practical processing of plurilingualism as aresource in professional activities. ‘border-crossing’ and ‘languaging’ in multilingual workplaces.In A. C. Berthoud, F. Grin, & G. Lüdi (Eds.), Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: TheDYLAN project (pp. 33–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Griffith, D. A. (2002). The role of communication competencies in international business relation-ship development. Journal of World Business, 37(4), 256–265.

Grin, F. (2003a). Language policy evaluation and the European charter for regional and minoritylanguages. London: Palgrave Macmillian.

Grin, F. (2003b). Language planning and economics. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(1), 1–66.

18 G. R. SANDEN

Hagen, S. (Ed.). (1999). Business communication across borders. A study of language use and prac-tices in European companies. London: Languages National Training Organisation.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.Harzing, A. W. (2000). An empiricial analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology of

multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1), 101–120.Harzing, A. W., & Feely, A. J. (2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQ-subsidary

relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 49–61.Harzing, A. W., Köster, K., & Magner, U. (2011). Babel in business: The language barrier and its

solutions in the HQ-subsidiary relationship. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 279–287.Henderson, J. K. (2005). Language diversity in international management teams. International

Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1), 66–82.Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests,

emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 45(5), 536–561.

Hwang, K. (2013). Effects of the language barrier on processes and performance of internationalscientific collaboration, collaborators’ participation, organisational integrity, and interorganisa-tional relationships. Science Communication, 35(1), 3–31.

Incelli, E. (2008). Foreign language management in Lazio SMEs. Language Policy, 7(2), 99–120.Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international

companies: The contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414–430.Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2014). Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding:

Towards a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 45(5), 623–639.

Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes. A resource book for students. New York, NY: Routledge.Jernudd, B., & Neustupný, J. (1987). Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge (Ed.), Proceedings

of the international colloquium on language planning (pp. 69–84). Quebec: Les presses del’Université Laval.

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language inthe outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. GWiddowson (Eds.), English in the world. Teaching and learn-ing the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed). Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

Kangasharju, H., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2010). Yrityksen kielipolitiikka: Missä se piilee? [‘Thelanguage policy in international firms: Where is it hiding?’] In H. Lappalainen, M. L. Sorjonen& M. Vilkuna (Eds.), Kielellä on merkitystä [‘Language matters’] (pp. 135–157). Helsinki:Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Ketchen, D., & Short, J. (2012). Strategic management: Evaluation and execution. Retrieved fromhttp://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/strategic-management-evaluation-and-execution/index.html

Kilpatrick, R. H. (1984). International business communication practices. Journal of BusinessCommunication, 21(4), 33–44.

Kingsley, L. E. (2010). Language policy in multilingual workplaces: Management, practices andbeliefs in banks in Luxembourg (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Wellington,Victoria.

Kramer, M. W., & Crespy, D. A. (2011). Communicating collaborative leadership. The LeadershipQuarterly, 22(5), 1024–1037.

Lauring, J., & Tange, H. (2010). International language management: Contained or dilute com-munication. European Journal of International Management, 4(4), 317–322.

Lester, T. (1994). Pulling down the language barrier. International Management, 49(July-August),42–44.

Linn, A., Sanden, G. R., & Piekkari, R. (2018). Language standardization in sociolinguistics andinternational business: Theory and practice across the table. In T. Sherman, & J. Nekvapil

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 19

(Eds.), English in business and commerce: Interactions and policies (pp. 19–45). Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.

Logemann, M., & Piekkari, R. (2015). Localize or local lies? The power of language and translationin the multinational corporation. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 11(1), 30–53.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordiccorporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 401–421.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2010). Language matters: An introduction. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 47(2), 91–96.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2012). Language as an issue in international internalcommunication: English or local language? If English, what English? Public Relations Review,38(2), 262–269.

Lüdi, G. (2016). From language regimes to multilingual practices in different settings. In G. Lüdi, K.H. Meier, & P. Yanaprasart (Eds.),Managing plurilingual and intercultural practices in the work-place (pp. 69–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lüdi, G., Meier, K. H., Kohler, F. S., & Yanaprasart, P. (2016). Power in the implementation of plur-ilingual repertoires. In G. Lüdi, K. H. Meier, & P. Yanaprasart (Eds.),Managing plurilingual andintercultural practices in the workplace (pp. 29–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. (2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual community:Language and organization in a global context. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 321–339.

Malkamäki, A., & Herberts, K. (2014). Case Wärtsilä. Multilingualism in work situations. Vaasa:University of Vaasa.

Marschan, R., Welch, D., &Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational man-agement. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591–598.

Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999a). Adopting a common corporate language:IHRM implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 377–390.

Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999b). In the shadow: The impact of language onstructure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8(4),421–440.

McEntee-Atalianis, L. J. (2006). Geostrategies of interlingualism: Language policy and practice inthe international Maritime organisation, London, UK. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2&3), 341–358.

Millar, S., Cifuentes, S., & Jensen, A. (2013). A social representational perspective on languages andtheir management in the Danish corporate sector. In A. C. Berthoud, F. Grin, & G. Lüdi (Eds.),Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: The DYLAN project (pp. 101–120). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Nasreen, A., Bragado, J. F., Vicente, M. J. G., & Hagen, S. (1999). Foreign language use and theneeds of Spanish exporters in central Spain. In S. Hagen (Ed.), Business communication acrossborders. A study of language use and practices in European companies (pp. 83–99). London:Languages National Training Organisation.

Neeley, T. (2011). Language and globalization: ‘Englishnization’ at Rakuten. Harvard BusinessSchool organizational behavior unit case no. 412-002. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1993062

Neeley, T. (2017). The language of global success. How a common tongue transforms multinationalorganizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Neeley, T. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organ-izations. Organization Science, 24(4), 476–497.

Neeley, T. B., & Dumas, T. L. (2016). Unearned status gain: Evidence from a global languagemandate. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 14–43.

Neeley, T. B., Hinds, P. M., & Cramton, C. D. (2012). The (un)hidden turmoil of language in globalcollaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 236–244.

Nekvapil, J., & Nekula, M. (2006). On language management in multinational companies in theCzech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2 & 3), 307–327.

20 G. R. SANDEN

Nekvapil, J., & Sherman, T. (2009). Pre-interaction management in multinational companies inCentral Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(2), 181–198.

Nekvapil, J., & Sherman, T. (2015). An introduction: Language management theory in languagepolicy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232, 1–12.

Nekvapil, J., & Sherman, T. (2018). Managing superdiversity in multinational companies. In A.Creese, & A. Blackledge (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity (pp.329–344). London: Tyler & Francis.

Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English forSpecific Purposes, 24(4), 367–380.

Paunova, M. (2015). The emergence of individual and collective leadership in task groups: A matterof achievement and ascription. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 935–957.

Peel, M. J., & Eckart, H. (1996). Language and export barriers in the manufacturing sector.Management Research News, 19(3), 52–61.

Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. (2014). Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations: Productiveand counterproductive effects of language-sensitive recruitment. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 45(5), 600–622.

Phillipson, R. (2000). English in the new world order. Variations on a theme of linguistic imperi-alism and ‘world’ English. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus onEnglish (pp. 87–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration andglobalisation. World Englishes, 27(2), 250–267.

Piekkari, R. (2008). Language and careers in multinational corporations. In S. Tietze (Ed.),International management and language (pp. 128–137). Abingdon: Routledge.

Piekkari, R., Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. (2015). The silent board: How language diversity mayinfluence the work processes of corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An InternationalReview, 23(1), 25–41.

Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. (2012). Language and international human resource management. In G. K.Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management(2nd ed., pp. 549–565). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration? Humanresource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 330–344.

Piekkari, R., Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2014). Language in international business: The multilin-gual reality of global business expansion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Piekkari, R., Welch, D. E., Welch, L. S., Peltonen, J. P., & Vesa, T. (2013). Translation behaviour:An exploratory study within a service multinational. International Business Review, 22(5),771–783.

Piekkari, R., & Zander, L. (2005). Preface: Language and communication in international manage-ment. International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1), 3–9.

Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: Areview of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591–622.

Reeves, N., & Wright, C. (1996). Linguistic auditing: A guide to identifying foreign language com-munication needs in corporations. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and consequences.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5), 345–359.

SanAntonio, P. (1987). Social mobility and language use in an American company in Japan. Journalof Language and Social Psychology, 6(3 & 4), 191–200.

Sanden, G. R. (2016a). Language management x 3: A theory, a sub-concept, and a business strategytool. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 520–535.

Sanden, G. R. (2016b). Language: The sharpest tool in the business strategy toolbox. CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, 21(3), 274–288.

Sanden, G. R., & Kankaanranta, A. (2018). ‘English is an unwritten rule here’: Non-formalisedlanguage policies in multinational corporations. Corporate Communications: An InternationalJournal, 23(4), 544–566.

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 21

Sanden, G. R., & Lønsmann, D. (2018). Discretionary power on the front line: A bottom-up per-spective on corporate language management. European Journal of International Management,12(1/2), 111–137.

Schroedler, T. (2018). The value of foreign language skills in international business for nativeEnglish speaking countries: A study on Ireland. In T. Sherman, & J. Nekvapil (Eds.), Englishin business and commerce: Interactions and policies (pp. 231–255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Seargeant, P. (2009). Language ideology, language theory, and the regulation of linguistic behaviour.Language Sciences, 31(4), 345–359.

Sherman, T., & Nekvapil, J. (2018). Sociolinguistic perspectives on English in business and com-merce. In T. Sherman, & J. Nekvapil (Eds.), English in business and commerce: Interactionsand policies (pp. 1–16). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Slangen, A. H. L. (2011). A communication-based theory of the choice between greenfield andacquisition entry. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1699–1726.

Śliwa, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). How non-native English-speaking staff are evaluated in linguis-tically diverse organizations: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 45(9), 1133–1151.

Søderberg, A. M. (2012). Virtual communication and collaboration in global research and develop-ment teams: A case study of an Indian R&D hub. In M. C. Gertsen, A. M. Søderberg, & M. Zølner(Eds.), Global collaboration: Intercultural experiences and learning (pp. 237–254). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillian.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Tange, H. (2008). Global commitment or local grievances? An assessment of the Grundfos language

policy. Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 41, 155–173.Tange, H. (2009). Language workers and the practice of language management. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 14(2), 131–143.Tange, T., & Lauring, J. (2009). Language management and social interaction within the multilin-

gual workplace. Journal of Communication Management, 13(3), 218–232.Thomas, C. A. (2008). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Language policy in multilin-

gual organisations. Language Awareness, 17(4), 307–325.Tietze, S. (2008). International management and language. Abingdon: Routledge.Tietze, S., Cohen, L., & Musson, G. (2003). Understanding organizations through language. London:

Sage Publications Ltd.Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2003). The ‘balance’ of power principle – Nationality, politics and the dis-

tribution of organizational positions. In A. M. Søderberg, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Merging acrossborders. People, cultures and politics (pp. 87–110). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business SchoolPress.

Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power in amerging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 595–623.

Van den Born, F., & Peltokorpi, V. (2010). Language policies and communication in multinationalcompanies: Alignment with strategic orientation and human resource management practices.Journal of Business Communication, 47(2), 97–118.

Van Parijs, P. (2009). Grab a territory! English dominance versus equal linguistic dignity in theEuropean Union in the 21st century. In J. Poirier, J. E. Fossum, & P. Magnette (Eds.), Tiesthat bind: Accommodating diversity in Canada and the European Union (pp. 155–172).Brussels: Peter Lang.

Verstraete-Hansen, L. (2008). Hvad skal vi med sprog? Holdninger til fremmedsprog i danske virk-somheder i et uddannelsespolitisk perspektiv [‘What do we need languages for? Attitudes toforeign languages in Danish corporations considered in relation to educational policy’].Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.

22 G. R. SANDEN

Volk, S., Köhler, T., & Pudelko, M. (2014). Brain drain: The cognitive neuroscience of foreignlanguage processing in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies,45(5), 862–885.

Welch, D., & Welch, L. (2008). The importance of language in international knowledge transfer.Management International Review, 48(3), 339–360.

Welch, D., &Welch, L. (2018). Coping with multilingualism: Internationalization and the evolutionof language strategy. Global Strategy Journal doi:10.1002/gsj.1191

Welch, D., Welch, L., & Piekkari, R. (2001). The persistent impact of language on global operations.Prometheus, 19(3), 193–209.

Yanaprasart, P. (2016). The challenge of the management of diversity. In G. Lüdi, K. H. Meier, & P.Yanaprasart (Eds.), Managing plurilingual and intercultural practices in the workplace (pp. 187–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zander, L., Mockaitis, A., & Harzing, A. W. (2011). Standardization and contextualization: A studyof language and leadership across 17 countries. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 296–304.

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 23